Summary: We upheld a complaint from Ms X, finding the Council slow to address her dissatisfaction with a personal budget she received to provide occupational therapy for her daughter. Also, it was slow to address how her daughter could attend therapy sessions when her school said it could not transport her. We found as a result Ms X and her daughter suffered an injustice as Ms X did not receive a budget sufficient to meet her daughter’s needs and who lost provision as a result. The Council accepted these findings. At the end of this statement we set out the action it agreed to remedy Ms X’s injustice and improve its service to avoid a repeat.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the support provided by the Council to her disabled daughter, ‘Y’, who has special educational needs. Ms X complained the Council:

• had not provided therapy provision for Y, in line with her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan; and
• had not provided her with a sufficient personal budget to buy occupational therapy needed by Y.

2. Ms X said because of the above Y had not received all the therapeutic provision she needed, particularly occupational therapy. She said without this therapy, Y was at more risk because of self-harming behaviours. This in turn placed more strain on Ms X as Y’s main carer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)
8. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. I gave Ms X and the Council a draft version of this decision statement and invited their comments. I took account of their responses to the draft decision before putting this statement in its final format.

Back to top

What I found

Key Legal and Administrative Considerations

EHC Plans – general

11. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and arrangements made to meet them. The EHC Plan has sections, including:

• Section F, which sets out the education provision the child needs;
• Section I, which names their education setting (or type of setting);
• Section J, which sets out any personal budget needed to fund the provision in the Plan.

12. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act).

EHC Plan reviews

13. A council must arrange for a review of an EHC Plan at least once a year. The council must complete the review within 12 months of the first EHC Plan and within 12 months of any later reviews. The annual review begins with consulting the child’s parents and educational setting. A review meeting must then take place. It completes when the council issues a decision to amend, maintain or end the EHC Plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting (see Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176). 
14. Where the council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan. It must also send them an accompanying notice providing details of the proposed amendments (see Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194). This should also happen within four weeks of the date of the review meeting. Councils must then issue a final amended EHC Plan within the next eight weeks.

EHC Plan appeals

15. A parent can appeal to the Tribunal in various circumstances, including following the issue of a final amended EHC plan after a review. This includes if they disagree with a council’s decision:

• about the special educational provision set out in Section F of the plan; and
• about the education setting, type of setting or that it has not named any setting in Section I of the plan.

16. A parent cannot appeal a decision not to include a personal budget, or the amount of a personal budget, in Section J of a plan.

Personal budgets

17. The personal budget is the money the council identifies as needed to pay for provision in a child or young person’s EHC Plan. One way that councils can deliver a personal budget is by making direct payments to the child’s parent or the young person. They can then commission the provision in the EHC Plan themselves.
18. A child’s parent has the right to ask for a personal budget after the council has completed an EHC needs assessment and confirmed it will prepare an EHC Plan. They may also ask for a personal budget during a review of an existing EHC Plan.
19. The Council must ensure the personal budget will be enough to secure the agreed provision set out in the EHC Plan.
20. The council only discharges it duty to secure or arrange the provision set out in an EHC Plan when it has acquired, or the child’s parent has acquired, the provision set out in the plan.

The key facts

21. In April 2022 the Council issued a final EHC Plan to Y following an annual review. Section F of the Plan identified Y needed the following therapeutic provision as part of her education:

• weekly occupational therapy from a qualified occupational therapist with specific qualifications and expertise in a specific method for providing that therapy;
• a one hour session of physiotherapy from a qualified therapist once a term. The physiotherapist would also spend two weeks devising a hydrotherapy programme for Y. A trained support worker would then deliver a “block” of hydrotherapy to Y over six weeks in line with that programme.

22. Section I of the Plan identified Y would attend a specialist school. Section J of the Plan said Ms X would receive a direct payment of £5600 to buy occupational therapy for Y and £2305 to buy physiotherapy.
23. A review of Y’s Plan took place in July 2023. This identified Y had not received hydrotherapy. Ms X asked for a personal budget to buy this. The review noted a report from Y’s physiotherapist which did not recommend Y needed hydrotherapy. The review meeting recorded as an action point that the Council would “explore PB [personal budget] to arrange and execute HT [hydrotherapy]”.
24. In November 2023 the Council issued a draft version of an amended EHC Plan. This proposed amending Section F as follows:

• Y would continue to receive “weekly occupational therapy”, through a specially qualified therapist, using the specific method, as before. But the Plan proposed adding wording that Y would “participate twice per week (during school terms) with one-to-one 45 minute sessions of occupational therapy in a clinic setting”; and
• removing all mention of Y receiving physiotherapy or hydrotherapy.

25. Section J proposed Ms X would continue to receive a personal budget to buy in occupational therapy.
26. In December 2023 the Council issued an amended final EHC Plan to Y containing the changes proposed in November. It said Ms X would receive £5600 to buy in occupational therapy.
27. At the end of January 2024 Ms X sent the Council comments on a form headed “proposal to amend an EHC Plan”. In the form Ms X expressed concern that Y’s school did not always take her to the occupational therapy clinic. She said that if Y could not attend occupational therapy during term times she wanted her to ‘catch up' with sessions during the school holidays. Ms X also said the proposed personal budget was inadequate.
28. In June 2024 the Council issued another EHC Plan to Y, in a final format. It was in the same terms as that issued in December 2023.
29. The Council gave direct payments to Ms X through the 2023-24 academic year based on the annual sum of £5600 set out in Y’s Plans. However, during this investigation it realised it had underpaid Ms X by £765. It offered to send that underpayment to her.
30. In September 2024 a review meeting took place at Y’s school. The minutes of that meeting said the Council had issued Y with a “proposed amended Plan in March 2024” but had not finalised that. The minutes also recorded Ms X’s dissatisfaction the Council had removed physiotherapy and hydrotherapy from Y’s EHC Plan. At the review Ms X also said her personal budget was not enough to buy in occupational therapy for Y and that she wanted Y to receive this once a week, 52 weeks a year.
31. Ms X also sent an email to the Council around the same time, where she said the personal budget for her to buy in occupational therapy for Y was not enough. She said the sum provided by the Council for the 2023-24 academic year had not been enough to meet Y’s needs. Ms X said she had met extra costs and had receipts to show this.
32. The Council replied two days later and asked Ms X to provide a quote, cross-referenced to Section F of Y’s Plan, to show what the provision cost.
33. Next, in October 2024 the Council issued an amended draft EHC Plan for Y. It did not propose any amendments to Section F where it set out Y’s need for occupational therapy.
34. In January 2025 Ms X asked the Council to “release the funds” so she could pay for Y’s occupational therapy. A Council officer said she would take Ms X’s request to a panel of senior officers for a decision.
35. At some point before this, the Council had received a statement from Ms X asking for a personal budget of £26,700 a year. This incorporated a quote from an occupational therapist saying it would cost £10,300 for Y’s provision. Ms X requested the remaining money to cover the cost of support workers accompanying Y to occupational therapy sessions and transport costs.
36. Later, the Council also received a copy of the quote from the occupational therapist breaking down the sum of £10,300. The amount included 52 direct sessions with Y; the cost of completing an assessment; time spent devising programmes for Y’s school; for providing updates once a term and for a report and attendance at Y’s annual review.
37. In March 2025 the Council’s panel agreed a personal budget of £7420 only. It based this on an hourly cost for a therapist for 53 hours per year. It did not agree to pay for support workers or transport. It gave no reasons for this. But it did say that Y should receive occupational therapy in school, because it understood from the school, Y became distressed travelling to the clinic. It also said it did not agree to Y having 52 week occupational therapy provision as she needed it during term times only.
38. The Council communicated that decision to Ms X and said at that point it would either provide the personal budget offered or commission the service directly. In reply, Ms X asked it to “release the funds”. She also said Y’s Plan meant she should receive occupational therapy “weekly once across the year”.
39. In following emails, sent in March 2025, the Council said that it would commission the occupational therapy service unless Ms X agreed to Y having the service in school and not the clinic setting.
40. Ms X then sent further emails asking the Council to release funds so she could buy in occupational therapy for Y.
41. In April 2025 the Council issued a final version of Y’s EHC Plan. This continued to specify the therapy Y needed in the same terms as the December 2023 and June 2024 versions. In other words, that Y would receive two weekly sessions of occupational therapy “in a clinic setting”. It did not include any physiotherapy or hydrotherapy provision. Section J said Ms X would receive a personal budget of £5,600.
42. Email communications resumed between Ms X and the Council about the personal budget and direct payments for her to buy in occupational therapy for Y. At the end of May 2025, the Council agreed to provide a personal budget of £26,100. It said it would pay this in three instalments, one each school term.
43. Ms X agreed to this in principle. But she said she needed a payment to cover the full 2024-25 academic year. Ms X also said she did not want the Council “unlawfully” removing provision from Y.
44. In response the Council said it could not pre-determine the annual review process. And that it would release the “first termly instalment” of the personal budget once Ms X signed the personal budget agreement.
45. Ms X went on to sign the agreement at the end of June 2025. The Council went on to pay her £8700 a term in line with the agreement.

Ms X’s complaint

46. Ms X made a complaint in July 2024 and the Council gave its final reply in January 2025. She complained the Council:

• had removed hydrotherapy provision from Y’s EHC Plan;
• would not fund a hot tub so Y could receive hydrotherapy at home or provide that service another way.

47. In its reply the Council quoted the relevant passage from Y’s EHC Plan dated April 2022 which identified a need for her to have hydrotherapy. It said this did not require it to fund a hot tub, but it recognised it had failed to provide the hydrotherapy the Plan said Y needed. The Council offered Ms X a payment of £3360 in recognition of “two years missed hydrotherapy”. During this investigation Ms X said to me this was satisfactory.
48. The Council’s reply also addressed the subject of Y’s occupational therapy. It said that since May 2024 Y’s school had said it could not support Y travelling to a clinic to receive this, as she became distressed. So, it wanted to provide Y with occupational therapy on-site instead. It noted the occupational therapist would not have the same specialist qualification or use the same method to deliver therapy as set out in Y’s EHC Plan. The Council understood Ms X did not agree to this proposal and so had agreed to arrange for Y’s transport instead.
49. It further understood Ms X had struggled to find a transport provider and so the Council had therefore agreed to Y having occupational therapy sessions during summer 2024 to catch up. It noted Ms X had then sent her quote for Y to attend occupational therapy to include transport and support workers in September 2024. The Council noted Ms X had not included a quote from the occupational therapist within her request. It said the Council remained committed to providing Y’s therapy provision in line with her Plan.
50. Ms X escalated her complaint to this office in June 2025. She said the Council had failed to make therapy provision to Y in line with her Plan, including occupational therapy, physiotherapy and hydrotherapy. She also said the Council had withheld direct payments needed to buy in Y’s occupational therapy.

My Findings

The scope of the investigation

51. My investigation covered the academic years September 2023 to July 2024 and September 2024 to July 2025.
52. Ms X’s complaint about hydrotherapy engaged with the previous academic year, September 2022 to July 2023. But I considered the Council resolved this in January 2025. In its reply to Ms X’s complaint made then, the Council accepted it had failed to provide hydrotherapy to Y for a period encompassing that academic year. It agreed to pay Ms X a sum equivalent to what the hydrotherapy service would have cost the Council. Ms X considered that a satisfactory outcome to that part of her complaint. So, there was no need for my investigation to further address that matter.
53. I could not consider events after July 2025, because we lose the power to investigate from the time we accept a complaint for investigation. We accepted Ms X’s complaint around the end of the 2024-25 academic year. So, this marked the cut-off date for the investigation.
54. My investigation focused on two matters. First, whether Y received therapeutic provision set out in Section F of her EHC Plan in the two academic years in question and if not, whether the Council had a duty to provide it. Second, how the Council managed Ms X’s requests for direct payments to pay for Y’s therapeutic provision over the two academic years in question. However, as will become clear from my analysis below there was some overlap between these matters.
55. My investigation did not consider the scope of Y’s provision set out in Section F of the EHC Plans issued in December 2023, June 2024 and April 2025.
56. I noted the December 2023 Plan contained changes to Section F of Y’s Plan. That version of the Plan and later versions contained no mention of Y needing physiotherapy and hydrotherapy. In some correspondence, Ms X had suggested this was unlawful. It was not. The minutes of the annual review held in July 2023 showed disagreement about whether Y still needed hydrotherapy. The action point recorded at the end of that meeting suggested that even so, the Council might still provide Ms X a personal budget to buy hydrotherapy for Y. But the November 2023 draft plan removed any doubt about that. Because the Council clearly set out it proposed removing the provision and any personal budget to pay for it.
57. I decided not to investigate the Council’s decision to remove this provision from Y’s Plan. It is not usually for this office to become involved in disputes about what provision a child needs or the arrangements to deliver that provision. This is because if the Council decides to remove provision from a Plan then the child’s parent will have the right to appeal to the Tribunal. And it is the Tribunal that has the necessary experience and expertise to decide on disputes about provision.
58. It is only in exceptional circumstances we will investigate where a parent has had chance to appeal to a Tribunal the subject of their complaint. In this case, I noted Ms X had the opportunity to appeal the Council’s decision to remove the physiotherapy and hydrotherapy from Y’s Plan in December 2023. She could also have appealed to the Tribunal to have such therapy reinstated following issue of the June 2024 and April 2025 Plans. She had not done so.
59. I was not aware of any reason why Ms X could not appeal on any of these occasions. So, I did not use any discretion to explore the Council’s removal of those therapeutic provisions.

The complaint Y did not receive occupational therapy provision

60. Up to December 2023, Y’s EHC Plan required that she should receive physiotherapy. There was no complaint from Ms X that she could not provide this using the personal budget agreed originally in April 2022. And I explained above why I would not investigate any complaint about the Council withdrawing this provision from Y’s Plan.
61. That left me to consider Y’s occupational therapy provision. Up to December 2023 there was an expectation Y would receive therapy once a week from a specially qualified therapist using a particular method of occupational therapy.
62. Then, in December 2023 Y’s Plan changed. One part of Section F said Y would now receive two sessions of occupational therapy a week, although confusingly another part said it would be one session a week. The Council also amended the Plan to make clear the setting for the therapy would be a clinic and not in school. The Plan said the provision was for term times only, not for 52 weeks a year.
63. Because Ms X received a personal budget, she had the responsibility to arrange Y’s occupational therapy. I noted that before the Council issued the Plan Ms X did not express any concern that she could not do this. However, soon afterwards, in January 2024, Ms X raised three matters:

• first, the school did not always ensure Y attended her occupational therapy sessions at the clinic;
• second, that she wanted Y to therefore ‘catch up’ on sessions she missed during the school holidays;
• third, the personal budget was not enough to meet the cost of Y’s occupational therapy.

64. I found no evidence the Council engaged with any of these matters at the time. It became clear from correspondence sent in 2025 there was a long-running disagreement between Ms X and the school about it transporting Y to her occupational therapy. I understood the basis of the dispute was the school found Y became distressed when it transported her to the occupational therapy clinic. But Ms X said when she transported Y, she did not find Y became distressed.
65. In the end, all parties resolved this disagreement in June 2025 when the Council agreed Ms X’s personal budget should encompass transport and escort arrangements. However, that should not have taken so long. The Council should have addressed why Y did not attend all her occupational therapy sessions when Ms X raised this matter with it in January 2024. It should have impressed on Y’s school, the Plan required Y to attend the clinic setting. In not doing so, the Council was at fault.
66. I also found fault with the Council that when it finally engaged with this disagreement, it took a position contrary to what it wrote into Y’s EHC Plan. Around March 2025 the Council sought to persuade Ms X to accept that Y should receive her occupational therapy in school. It did this despite her Plan clearly stating she should receive the therapy in a clinic. Further, it did this knowing the occupational therapy available at the school would not be from a therapist with the specific qualifications set out in Y’s Plan. Nor would they follow the specific method of delivering therapy set out in the Plan. This approach also contradicted what the Council told Ms X when it replied to her complaint.
67. If the Council believed Y no longer needed specialist therapy and the school could meet her need instead, then it should have issued an amended plan providing the evidence for this belief. Only with changes to Y’s Plan could the Council follow such an approach.
68. Turning to Ms X’s request Y should receive occupational therapy outside terms times, I found her position changed over time. Ms X framed her request made in January 2024 as one where she wanted Y to have catch-up occupational therapy sessions in the holidays if she missed one during term time. That was a different proposition to how Ms X later framed this matter, where she said Y needed 52 weekly sessions a year. Wrongly, Ms X said this is what Y’s Plan required.
69. The Council correctly rejected this latter suggestion, as Y’s Plan never said she would receive occupational therapy outside term times. If Ms X wanted this writing into Y’s Plan then she needed to exercise her appeal rights and ask the Tribunal to amend the Plan to include this. As I noted above, Ms X had three opportunities during the events covered by this complaint to appeal did not do so.
70. However, the Council could legitimately consider how Y might catch up with sessions missed. This was something it engaged with in summer 2024 when it agreed Y could have extra occupational therapy over the holiday period. It is regrettable that it did not apply a consistent approach when the subject came up again later. That stemmed in turn from its failure to get to grips with the school not sending Y to all her occupational therapy sessions.

The complaint about the personal budget and direct payments

71. It was hard to de-couple the issues addressed above from the question of the cost of Y’s occupational therapy. Ms X’s request for a significantly increased personal budget in September 2024 stemmed directly from the school saying it could not transport Y to her occupational therapy. While the Council’s action in seeking Ms X to agree to a school-based programme of occupational therapy for Y coincided with its rejection of her request for an increased personal budget.
72. However, even before these matters arose, I considered the Council at fault for not reconsidering the’s personal budget when it issued Y’s EHC Plan in December 2023. This increased Y’s occupational therapy provision. But the Council expected Ms X to purchase this increased provision at the same cost as in April 2022.
73. As early as January 2024 Ms X told the Council her personal budget was therefore insufficient. But the Council did not engage with her comments. That was a fault.
74. Ms X waited some months to follow-up those comments. Not until September 2024 did she say to the Council again her personal budget was not enough. The Council did not clarify exactly what information Ms X provided in September 2024 in support of her comments. But I worked on the basis Ms X asked an overall personal budget of £26,700. However, it was not until January 2025 Ms X provided her quote from the occupational therapist which formed part of that. Ms X could have done more therefore to ensure the Council reviewed the personal budget before Spring 2025.
75. However, the Council was then at fault for how it carried out that review. The record of its panel’s decision contained no reasons for rejecting Ms X’s request for transport and escort costs for Y. And as I noted above, the Council looked at Ms X’s personal budget request without considering its duty to ensure Y received therapy in line with her EHC Plan. The panel took its decision with fault therefore, as it did not take account of all relevant factors.
76. That said, the Panel still recommended a personal budget greater than that in Y’s June 2024 EHC Plan which remained in force. But when the Council then issued an amended plan just weeks after the Panel decision in April 2025, it reverted to the June 2024 figure. That too was a fault.
77. Then, for several weeks the Council did not act to resolve an impasse it had reached with Ms X. She rejected the Panel’s decision on the size of the personal budget and the conditions attached. She sent several emails it did not reply to straight away. So, more fault by the Council delayed resolution of this matter.
78. Eventually, in June 2025, the Council agreed with Ms X the higher personal budget. I understood she received payments under this arrangement subsequently and this included a payment to cover the summer term of the 2024-25 academic year. However, the Council did not make clear if it had considered making any payment for any of the four preceding terms, which Ms X had said were inadequate. That was a fault.
79. I noted this investigation also led the Council to identify another fault. It found it had not made all payments to Ms X during the 2023-24 academic year in line with Y’s Plans of June 2022 and December 2023.
80. The investigation also showed delays by the Council in completing reviews of Y’s EHC Plans. However, I chose not to make a finding about this, as I did not consider the delays central to the issues at the crux of this complaint.

The injustice caused by the Council’s faults

81. I considered next the consequences of the Council’s faults in this case. In paragraphs 64 and 65 I found fault because it did not try to resolve sooner that Y did not attend all her occupational therapy sessions. Then, when it belatedly did so, it failed to do so in line with Y’s EHC Plan (see paragraph 66). As a result, Y must have missed some of her provision in both the 2023-24 and 2024-25 academic years. I accepted Ms X’s account where she explained how Y had benefited from occupational therapy and the potential outcome of her going without. So, the loss of this service to Y was an injustice.
82. In paragraphs 72 to 77 I explained where the Council was at fault in response to Ms X’s representations that she needed a higher personal budget. And that after it agreed this, it did not consider the consequence of its delay in doing so (see paragraph 78). I consider had the Council responded properly to Ms X’s representations it would have put the higher personal budget into place sooner. Ms X therefore lost the benefit of funding to provide Y with her occupational therapy at the time she needed it. It was unclear to me the extent to which Ms X had met those costs from her own funds to ensure Y still received occupational therapy. But clearly Ms X did not receive the budget she should have, which was an injustice.
83. In paragraph 79 I noted the Council recognised fault for not paying all its personal budget to Ms X during the 2023-24 academic year. It identified the shortfall as £765. The non-payment of this sum to meet the costs of Y’s occupational therapy was a further injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Agreed Action

84. The Council accepted the findings set out above. It agreed that to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X and Y it would, within 20 working days of this decision, provide the following:
1. an apology to Ms X accepting the findings of this investigation. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council would consider this guidance when making its apology;
2. the shortfall payment to Ms X of £765 for the 2023-24 academic year it identified during this investigation;
3. a commitment in writing to Ms X that it would make a further symbolic payment to her in line with paragraph 85 below, and that it would make that payment within 40 working days of this decision (I explain the reason for this timescale below).
85. As I explained above, it was unclear to me the extent to which Ms X had spent her own funds to support Y’s access to occupational therapy between January 2024 and April 2025. It was also unclear to me if the Council had backdated any of the increased personal budget it agreed in June 2025 to cover any of this period (although my assumption was it had not). The further payment I recommended, agreed by the Council, took account of these uncertainties. The Council agreed it would pay Ms X whichever of the following was the greater, either:

• £500 per term, up to a maximum of £2000, to recognise the impact of Y’s lost provision and its failure to increase Ms X’s personal budget sooner. If the Council had backdated the June 2025 agreement to cover any previous school term, then it would not need to pay this sum for each term covered by that back payment; OR
• the cost of expenses Ms X incurred between January 2024 and April 2025 on Y’s occupational therapy in addition to the funds she received from the Council as a personal budget either during in this time or following a back payment (i.e., this could include the shortfall payment identified at 85b) above). Ms X would need to provide proof to the Council she incurred such expenses and would have 20 working days to do so from the date of this final decision.

86. I did not consider it appropriate to recommend the Council arrange for any additional occupational therapy provision for Y. First, as I set out above, it was unclear to me how much provision Y had missed, and how much Ms X had managed to make up for any shortfall caused by the school not always transporting Y to her sessions. But second, I considered the passage of time meant Y’s need for occupational therapy would have been reviewed again since the events covered by the complaint or would shortly be reviewed. I considered the annual review the appropriate forum to consider Y’s ongoing need for this therapy and the extent to which she might benefit from increased provision to make up for any lost provision.
87. However, I considered this complaint had highlighted some systemic weakness in how the Council reviewed personal budgets and direct payments previously agreed with parents as part of an EHC Plan. It agreed that within 40 working days of this decision it would:

• review its existing processes to ensure that SEN Caseworkers considered adjusting a personal budget following an annual review of an EHC Plan, or where otherwise it had issued an amended plan which changed the provision covered by the personal budget; and
• let us know what it had changed as a result of that review and what further advice it had given, or intended to give, to its SEN Caseworkers about this subject.

88. The Council agreed to provide us with evidence when it had complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

89. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Ms X and Y. The Council accepted these findings and agreed action that I considered would remedy that injustice. Consequently, I completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman